(I have explained that patent before. The poor construction of its primary claim was the basis for a three judge panel denying Apple's request for an injunction on the Galaxy Nexus, and later refusing Apple's appeal for an en banc review of that denial.)
Good thing we have you to explain things for us. It's nice to know we have a source of reliable, complete and non-biased information about these cases.
I find it very strange that Apple allowed a person of Korean descent to sit as judge against a Korean company.
America is made up of all sorts of people from all over the world. Because of that, Americans are brought up to try to be fair. We don't always manage it, but I think it's our best core trait.
Btw, Judge Koh was born in Washington DC, and went to Harvard.
Quote:
Even if she is innocent (I doubt), is there not a conflict of interest, even a slight one? Why take the chance, aren't there other judges available?
Heck, using that kind of bigoted thinking, why have the trial in Apple's home state of California. Or even the USA.
I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.
Perhaps Vlingo is not infringing the patents in question and Samsung is. Perhaps Apple plans to go after Vlingo, but wants to go after Samsung first. Perhaps Vlingo has a license with Apple but Samsung doesn't. There are all sorts of reasons why Apple might be going after Samsung and not Vlingo.
Good points! But if Vlingo has a license agreement with Apple then the same license would travel to clients Vlingo then licenses the technology to....otherwise it would invalidate the first agreement. At this point there are more questions than answers....
I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.
This was discussed in the last thread. I don't have a problem with it. Too much information is not good for the jury and could cause them to make mistakes resulting in appeals or new trials. Apple should just file five concurrent trials with each one concentrating on a few claims instead of one large trial with everything done at once.
We had a very high-profile murder case here in Vancouver and they split that trial up because there was too much evidence to bring up all at one trial. This is actually quite common in cases with a lot of (or complex) evidence.
I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.
I agree that it doesn't seem fair.
In the last trial, Judge Koh put limits on the number of hours each side was allowed for testimony and counter arguments. This limit worked against Samsung, who wanted more time.
Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple isn't complaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
Good points! But if Vlingo has a license agreement with Apple then the same license would travel to clients Vlingo then licenses the technology to....otherwise it would invalidate the first agreement. At this point there are more questions than answers....
Again, this case has nothing at all to do with voice patents.
Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple still isn't complaining about the lack of time.
I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.
Good points! But if Vlingo has a license agreement with Apple then the same license would travel to clients Vlingo then licenses the technology to....otherwise it would invalidate the first agreement. At this point there are more questions than answers....
Unless it's a non-transferrable license - which are reasonably common. If ti's non-transferrable, it doesn't automatically go to Samsung.
I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.
Then maybe the judge should allow Apple to present 200 patents in a single trial? Imagine the headache that would cause, the months of testominy, hundreds of witnesses - it would be a mess. Where do you stop? What's the limit on how many patents/claims you can bring up in a single trial before it's "too much"?
A patent can stand on its own in court. I don't think the judge is "artificially limiting" the claims if both sides are allowed to present the same number of patents. She just wants them to "send in the top 3 players from each side" to fight, not have 3 on one side fighting 5 on the other side. Good thing for Apple is they have a larger team and soon Samsung is going to run out of layers for their counter suits.
This is not like a murder trial with the judge telling each side to limit your witness list. If a witness has something to add they should be allowed to so ALL the evidence is heard.
This is more like a hit man who is being charged with murdering 10 people in different cities and the judge deciding to have 10 trials, one for each murder.
The idea of going after Samsung has always been to ward people off Android.
Personally, I think people would take exception to an operating system been attacked, so win against the top guy and everyone else will be a poodle in comparison.
I also am confused as to why it is called the "Siri" lawsuit. There was and may still be four patents at issue. The patent people seem to be referring to as the Siri patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959. The description of the patent says, "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."
The patent probably partially involves Siri, but it is more about the iPhone's implementation of Mac OSX's Spot light. Namely, when you slide the phone screen all way to the left a search bar pops up. The patent is about how Spot light organizes information on the computer to be retrieved from a search. Apple has had this feature on Macs for a long time, so the patent seems pretty strong.
Then maybe the judge should allow Apple to present 200 patents in a single trial? Imagine the headache that would cause, the months of testominy, hundreds of witnesses - it would be a mess. Where do you stop? What's the limit on how many patents/claims you can bring up in a single trial before it's "too much"?
A patent can stand on its own in court. I don't think the judge is "artificially limiting" the claims if both sides are allowed to present the same number of patents. She just wants them to "send in the top 3 players from each side" to fight, not have 3 on one side fighting 5 on the other side. Good thing for Apple is they have a larger teamand soon Samsung is going to run out of layers for their counter suits.
This is not like a murder trial with the judge telling each side to limit your witness list. If a witness has something to add they should be allowed to so ALL the evidence is heard.
This is more like a hit man who is being charged with murdering 10 people in different cities and the judge deciding to have 10 trials, one for each murder.
I agree with much you say. This is about trying to make the cases easy enough for regular people sittingon a jury to understand. The problem I have with the judge trimming the cases, though is she is using the limited nature of the first case to disallow an injunction. Namely, she said since Apple's sued upon patents in the first case only encompass a small amount of features on the infringing phone, an injunction isn't proper. Yet, she forced Apple to bring separate cases for the various claims of patent infringement. If Apple was able to bring all its patents claims at once, the level of infringement (if Apple was successful) would be higher.
I also don't like how the jury overturned the juries finding of willful infringement on shallow grounds. The evidence certainly was strong enough to support that finding.
Given that Apple has so little confidence in Siri that they still label it "Beta" after a year and a half
No company has ever let any product go that long in beta status before. This has never happened in the history of human civiliza…
Gmail was launched as an invitation-only beta release on April 1, 2004[9] and it became available to the general public on February 7, 2007, though still in beta status at that time.[10] The service was upgraded from beta status on July 7, 2009,
I agree with much you say. This is about trying to make the cases easy enough for regular people sittingon a jury to understand.
Especially since infringement only requires proof for one claim per patent. As Judge Koh pointed out to the lawyers for both sides, they should know by now which of their claims are most likely to be upheld... and should concentrate on those... instead of wasting anyone's time on "filler material" as she put it.
Quote:
The problem I have with the judge trimming the cases, though is she is using the limited nature of the first case to disallow an injunction. Namely, she said since Apple's sued upon patents in the first case only encompass a small amount of features on the infringing phone, an injunction isn't proper.
That might be mixing up cases, since Koh sided with Apple at first on this one.
2012 Jun - Judge Koh GRANTS Apple a pretrial injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, based on her opinion that Apple would probably be able to prove infringement on at least the search patent.
2012 Oct - Three judge appeals panel says Apple's search claim poorly worded, remands case back to Koh, forcing her to remove the injunction.
2012 Dec - Apple asks for an en banc (all judge) review of the appeals decision.
2013 Jan - Appeals court denies Apple's request.
Samsung modified their search box before the injunction took effect, rendering the multi-location search patent moot.
Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta. I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready. To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point. I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
(I have explained that patent before. The poor construction of its primary claim was the basis for a three judge panel denying Apple's request for an injunction on the Galaxy Nexus, and later refusing Apple's appeal for an en banc review of that denial.)
Good thing we have you to explain things for us. It's nice to know we have a source of reliable, complete and non-biased information about these cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
I find it very strange that Apple allowed a person of Korean descent to sit as judge against a Korean company.
America is made up of all sorts of people from all over the world. Because of that, Americans are brought up to try to be fair. We don't always manage it, but I think it's our best core trait.
Btw, Judge Koh was born in Washington DC, and went to Harvard.
Quote:
Even if she is innocent (I doubt), is there not a conflict of interest, even a slight one? Why take the chance, aren't there other judges available?
Heck, using that kind of bigoted thinking, why have the trial in Apple's home state of California. Or even the USA.
I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Perhaps Vlingo is not infringing the patents in question and Samsung is. Perhaps Apple plans to go after Vlingo, but wants to go after Samsung first. Perhaps Vlingo has a license with Apple but Samsung doesn't. There are all sorts of reasons why Apple might be going after Samsung and not Vlingo.
Good points! But if Vlingo has a license agreement with Apple then the same license would travel to clients Vlingo then licenses the technology to....otherwise it would invalidate the first agreement. At this point there are more questions than answers....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.
This was discussed in the last thread. I don't have a problem with it. Too much information is not good for the jury and could cause them to make mistakes resulting in appeals or new trials. Apple should just file five concurrent trials with each one concentrating on a few claims instead of one large trial with everything done at once.
We had a very high-profile murder case here in Vancouver and they split that trial up because there was too much evidence to bring up all at one trial. This is actually quite common in cases with a lot of (or complex) evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.
I agree that it doesn't seem fair.
In the last trial, Judge Koh put limits on the number of hours each side was allowed for testimony and counter arguments. This limit worked against Samsung, who wanted more time.
Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple isn't complaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
Good points! But if Vlingo has a license agreement with Apple then the same license would travel to clients Vlingo then licenses the technology to....otherwise it would invalidate the first agreement. At this point there are more questions than answers....
Again, this case has nothing at all to do with voice patents.
The headlines are misleading.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple still isn't complaining about the lack of time.
I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.
Unless it's a non-transferrable license - which are reasonably common. If ti's non-transferrable, it doesn't automatically go to Samsung.
A patent can stand on its own in court. I don't think the judge is "artificially limiting" the claims if both sides are allowed to present the same number of patents. She just wants them to "send in the top 3 players from each side" to fight, not have 3 on one side fighting 5 on the other side. Good thing for Apple is they have a larger team and soon Samsung is going to run out of layers for their counter suits.
This is not like a murder trial with the judge telling each side to limit your witness list. If a witness has something to add they should be allowed to so ALL the evidence is heard.
This is more like a hit man who is being charged with murdering 10 people in different cities and the judge deciding to have 10 trials, one for each murder.
Personally, I think people would take exception to an operating system been attacked, so win against the top guy and everyone else will be a poodle in comparison.
its like limiting the amount of murders by a serial killer...samsuck being the serial killer..
I also am confused as to why it is called the "Siri" lawsuit. There was and may still be four patents at issue. The patent people seem to be referring to as the Siri patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959. The description of the patent says, "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."
The patent probably partially involves Siri, but it is more about the iPhone's implementation of Mac OSX's Spot light. Namely, when you slide the phone screen all way to the left a search bar pops up. The patent is about how Spot light organizes information on the computer to be retrieved from a search. Apple has had this feature on Macs for a long time, so the patent seems pretty strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Then maybe the judge should allow Apple to present 200 patents in a single trial? Imagine the headache that would cause, the months of testominy, hundreds of witnesses - it would be a mess. Where do you stop? What's the limit on how many patents/claims you can bring up in a single trial before it's "too much"?
A patent can stand on its own in court. I don't think the judge is "artificially limiting" the claims if both sides are allowed to present the same number of patents. She just wants them to "send in the top 3 players from each side" to fight, not have 3 on one side fighting 5 on the other side. Good thing for Apple is they have a larger team and soon Samsung is going to run out of layers for their counter suits.
This is not like a murder trial with the judge telling each side to limit your witness list. If a witness has something to add they should be allowed to so ALL the evidence is heard.
This is more like a hit man who is being charged with murdering 10 people in different cities and the judge deciding to have 10 trials, one for each murder.
I agree with much you say. This is about trying to make the cases easy enough for regular people sitting on a jury to understand. The problem I have with the judge trimming the cases, though is she is using the limited nature of the first case to disallow an injunction. Namely, she said since Apple's sued upon patents in the first case only encompass a small amount of features on the infringing phone, an injunction isn't proper. Yet, she forced Apple to bring separate cases for the various claims of patent infringement. If Apple was able to bring all its patents claims at once, the level of infringement (if Apple was successful) would be higher.
I also don't like how the jury overturned the juries finding of willful infringement on shallow grounds. The evidence certainly was strong enough to support that finding.
deleted
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Given that Apple has so little confidence in Siri that they still label it "Beta" after a year and a half
No company has ever let any product go that long in beta status before. This has never happened in the history of human civiliza…
Gmail was launched as an invitation-only beta release on April 1, 2004[9] and it became available to the general public on February 7, 2007, though still in beta status at that time.[10] The service was upgraded from beta status on July 7, 2009,
Oh, right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I agree with much you say. This is about trying to make the cases easy enough for regular people sitting on a jury to understand.
Especially since infringement only requires proof for one claim per patent. As Judge Koh pointed out to the lawyers for both sides, they should know by now which of their claims are most likely to be upheld... and should concentrate on those... instead of wasting anyone's time on "filler material" as she put it.
Quote:
The problem I have with the judge trimming the cases, though is she is using the limited nature of the first case to disallow an injunction. Namely, she said since Apple's sued upon patents in the first case only encompass a small amount of features on the infringing phone, an injunction isn't proper.
That might be mixing up cases, since Koh sided with Apple at first on this one.
2012 Jun - Judge Koh GRANTS Apple a pretrial injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, based on her opinion that Apple would probably be able to prove infringement on at least the search patent.
2012 Oct - Three judge appeals panel says Apple's search claim poorly worded, remands case back to Koh, forcing her to remove the injunction.
2012 Dec - Apple asks for an en banc (all judge) review of the appeals decision.
2013 Jan - Appeals court denies Apple's request.
Samsung modified their search box before the injunction took effect, rendering the multi-location search patent moot.
deleted
I didn't know I was living in communist USSR.
My posts are my opinions just like others and yet are being removed.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.